Philosophy thread

[someone447]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

i do not by no means advocat that. you must misunderstand my point

You are asking why people want more than they need. All they need is food, shelter, sex, and companionship. Nothing else. Everything past that is want, everything past that is greed.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

then thats what u need. its not more than what you need. so ur not being greedy :/

Two computers is much more than I need... One computer is more than I need. It makes my life easier so I want them, I do not in any way need them.

You are using words that do not mean what you are saying. You are giving definitions to words that do not fit in with the english definition.

That's one of the biggest reasons I am going on my trip, to prove to myself that I don't NEED everything I have now.

[Mr. Hero]

Originally Posted by Addict

new things are invented all the time, since humans are naturally inventive. It has very little to do with the profit system.

I disagree with this entirely. I've never once met a scientist who works in his field without reward, material gains are not the only form of profit/reward. Many who don't do what they do for the money do it for other selfish reasons be it the satisfaction of settling one's curiosity, one's ego by establishing a legacy, earning large-scale recognition of one's principles, increasing the chances of survival for a group or society as a whole, etc. There are innumerable selfish reasons why scientists and researchers create and innovate but to say that this has little to with a reward system is simple wrong. Just because there's more than just a monetary reward does not make it an unselfish act due to some natural inventiveness.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by someone447

We don't NEED anything but food, shelter, and companionship.

I think you should add some form of 'play' in that. If we had unlimited resources with regards to food/shelter/companionship we'd also need a way of entertainment. When you see animals that are provided those comforts in captivity or the wild, what to do they do? They either relax and sleep or they entertain themselves with a form of play.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

if we think most will just pick up hobbies won't their desire to excel in those hobbies create a form of greed that will make them not content?

If you are talking about a yearning that pushes them to work harder on their skill, I dont see how that's a bad thing. If someone enjoyed painting (to stay on the example) but wasn't as good as they wish they could be, what's the harm in working harder on improving themselves? The self-satisfaction of personal improvement is healthy, I believe.

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

I've never once met a scientist who works in his field without reward, material gains are not the only form of profit/reward. Many who don't do what they do for the money do it for other selfish reasons be it the satisfaction of settling one's curiosity, one's ego by establishing a legacy, earning large-scale recognition of one's principles, increasing the chances of survival for a group or society as a whole, etc.

The ones I bolded are ones I believe should be rewarded. If humans are taught that working for the better of the group because it benefits them equally, what's the harm?

[Mr. Hero]

Originally Posted by Brent

If you are talking about a yearning that pushes them to work harder on their skill, I dont see how that's a bad thing. If someone enjoyed painting (to stay on the example) but wasn't as good as they wish they could be, what's the harm in working harder on improving themselves? The self-satisfaction of personal improvement is healthy, I believe.


The ones I bolded are ones I believe should be rewarded. If humans are taught that working for the better of the group because it benefits them equally, what's the harm?

Keep in mind I don't consider greed a bad thing and think all of the negative connotations regularly attributed to greed are simply an attempt to subvert human nature. I don't see any harm from greed, I see harm from excessive short-term greed that is ignorant of the long-term. The thing is that working for the group isn't always in the individuals best interest, when it is I have no problem with people coming together, hell I don't even have a problem with people voluntarily coming together and forming a commune, but only as long as it's completely voluntary and free of coercion, which is one of the great evils IMO.

[Addict]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

I disagree with this entirely. I've never once met a scientist who works in his field without reward, material gains are not the only form of profit/reward. Many who don't do what they do for the money do it for other selfish reasons be it the satisfaction of settling one's curiosity, one's ego by establishing a legacy, earning large-scale recognition of one's principles, increasing the chances of survival for a group or society as a whole, etc. There are innumerable selfish reasons why scientists and researchers create and innovate but to say that this has little to with a reward system is simple wrong. Just because there's more than just a monetary reward does not make it an unselfish act due to some natural inventiveness.

recognition, honor, survival are all rewards, I guess I should have specified that the reward I think is secondary is the monetary reward. I think we basicaly agree, but that my phrasing has been less than stellar.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Addict

recognition, honor

So, respect/appreciation?

[Addict]

Originally Posted by Brent

So, respect/appreciation?

yeah, status, if you will. I think things took a turn for the worst when humanity started to directly link money to status.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Addict

things took a turn for the worst when humanity started to directly link money to status.

I would agree with that.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by Brent

I think you should add some form of 'play' in that. If we had unlimited resources with regards to food/shelter/companionship we'd also need a way of entertainment. When you see animals that are provided those comforts in captivity or the wild, what to do they do? They either relax and sleep or they entertain themselves with a form of play.

I agree, but that doesn't fit into the needs I stated. "Play" is not a resource, yes something to take your mind off the monotony of day to day life is needed, but that isn't the same sort of "need" that we have been talking about. There isn't a limited amount of "play" in the world.

[someone447]

Originally Posted by Addict

yeah, status, if you will. I think things took a turn for the worst when humanity started to directly link money to status.

Again, this goes back to when humanity first began farming. Money/possessions being linked to status has been around since the dawn of civilization. Money/possessions are what allowed mankind to specialize which led to civilization. I won't argue that materialism is not good for mankind in general, but I will argue that it isn't a new concept. It has been around as long as man has been around. The only difference? We now have a lot more stuff that we can own.

[Addict]

Originally Posted by someone447

Again, this goes back to when humanity first began farming. Money/possessions being linked to status has been around since the dawn of civilization. Money/possessions are what allowed mankind to specialize which led to civilization. I won't argue that materialism is not good for mankind in general, but I will argue that it isn't a new concept. It has been around as long as man has been around. The only difference? We now have a lot more stuff that we can own.

if you don't mind me asking, what the **** is your point?

[TitleTown088]

I'm not sure how much of a true philosopher Augustine of Hippo is considered as compared to theologian, but he's one of my favorite intellectuals to read by far.

Many of the ancient Monks are usually my favorites. Gotta love Bacon.

[Manic Depressant]

Originally Posted by Addict

if you don't mind me asking, what the **** is your point?

At what point did humans start linking money to status? That link has existed since mankind itself existed so how can you say that's when mankind started going downhill?

[someone447]

Originally Posted by Addict

if you don't mind me asking, what the **** is your point?

You said that when mankind started linking money and status thats when it started going downhill, I just pointed out that was a fallacy because money(or possessions before money) has always been linked to status.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by someone447

Two computers is much more than I need... One computer is more than I need. It makes my life easier so I want them, I do not in any way need them.

You are using words that do not mean what you are saying. You are giving definitions to words that do not fit in with the english definition.

That's one of the biggest reasons I am going on my trip, to prove to myself that I don't NEED everything I have now.

that depends on how u see need. If u mean need by need something to survive. if u live u always need something to entertain u. u need it if u dont want to go crazy. its needed. thats how i see it.

*** Ork, you are advocating living with only the bear necessities, so quit arguing for it and go out and live it. When you come back see if thats still how you think life should be.

I never once said: lets go out living without anything. when did i ever say that? i said without it, we wont have such things as greed. we wouldnt need more food to prevent us from starving, because we would have enough. there is no need for that.

what about the other stuff though? PCs make life easier. thats why we need them. To make life easier. to produce all sorts of stuff, to calculate things, thats when we need them. we wont need 3 computers though to do 1 calculation. that would be more than we need

[someone447]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

that depends on how u see need. If u mean need by need something to survive. if u live u always need something to entertain u. u need it if u dont want to go crazy. its needed. thats how i see it.


I never once said: lets go out living without anything. when did i ever say that? i said without it, we wont have such things as greed. we wouldnt need more food to prevent us from starving, because we would have enough. there is no need for that.

what about the other stuff though? PCs make life easier. thats why we need them. To make life easier. to produce all sorts of stuff, to calculate things, thats when we need them. we wont need 3 computers though to do 1 calculation. that would be more than we need

None of that is needed, food, shelter, sex, and companionship are the only things that are needed. You can't possibly say that a computer is needed. The VAST majority of the world does not have a computer, yet they survive just fine. The VAST majority of humans who have lived never even read a book much less watched TV or used a computer, none of that is needed. Things to entertain you is a want, not a need, and to argue otherwise is just plain wrong. Entertainment is needed, but things to entertain you are not.

Making things easier is not a need, a need is something that you will not be able to live without. No matter how addicted to technology you are, no technology is actually needed. You are using definitions for words that do not exist. Just saying "what I mean by _____" doesn't cut it, because that isn't what the word means.

You can find ways to entertain yourself without any modern invention.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by someone447

None of that is needed, food, shelter, sex, and companionship are the only things that are needed. You can't possibly say that a computer is needed. The VAST majority of the world does not have a computer, yet they survive just fine. The VAST majority of humans who have lived never even read a book much less watched TV or used a computer, none of that is needed. Things to entertain you is a want, not a need, and to argue otherwise is just plain wrong. Entertainment is needed, but things to entertain you are not.

so how do u get entertainment without things to entertain? I dont understand this logic :/. But thats exactly what i said though, if u say needs meaning things u need to survive, obviously everything else is not necessary. but that would make anyone greedy for doing anything. why would anyone do anything besides eating and sleeping? because he is greedy? You are greedy because u use a car?

Making things easier is not a need, a need is something that you will not be able to live without. No matter how addicted to technology you are, no technology is actually needed. You are using definitions for words that do not exist. Just saying "what I mean by _____" doesn't cut it, because that isn't what the word means.

You can find ways to entertain yourself without any modern invention.

you need technology to make stuff. you need it. you need most of the stuff to keep u mentally sane. you need to be sane to survive.

[The Unseen]

Originally Posted by Mr. Hero

We'll see though, I firmly believe in our lifetime we'll see our political system shifting back in the my direction at which point we'll see whether the people respond.

Really? Because I don't see that at all. The only lessening of power that I could imagine is the US having less of a world influence, but in the overall scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket compared to a shift towards anarcho-capitalism. Like it or not, any sort of dissolution of the major world powers would take alot of deaths. Not necessarily war - perhaps other types of calamities. But a whole lotta deaths.

So from what I have read, someone447, you say that violence and war is in human nature. I don't know if I can disagree with that position. But should we act differently from our nature? Because I don't really give a **** if we're all programmed to be bloodthirsty animals looking for war - I don't like war or violence. I'm against it. Atleast almost always, as there are sticky exceptions and areas that I'm undecided on. If my ethics system conflicts my evolutionary nature, I don't care. I can make my own judgments.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by The Unseen

Really? Because I don't see that at all. The only lessening of power that I could imagine is the US having less of a world influence, but in the overall scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket compared to a shift towards anarcho-capitalism.

So from what I have read, someone447, you say that violence and war is in human nature. I don't know if I can disagree with that position. But should we act differently from our nature? Because I don't really give a **** if we're all programmed to be bloodthirsty animals looking for war - I don't like war or violence. I'm against it. Atleast almost always, as there are sticky exceptions and areas that I'm undecided on. If my ethics system conflicts my evolutionary nature, I don't care. I can make my own judgments.

i dont understand the idea that it is human nature but we can fight against it. if its human nature its something thats absolute. if there are people who dont use it, it cant be human nature

[The Unseen]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

i dont understand the idea that it is human nature but we can fight against it. if its human nature its something thats absolute. if there are people who dont use it, it cant be human nature

Again with the definition games. I meant human nature as in evolutionary nature or atleast a common majority trait of humans. So no, I don't think war and violence is something every human does. If that's what someone447 meant, then I disagree.

Originally Posted by "someone447

You are using definitions for words that do not exist. Just saying "what I mean by _____" doesn't cut it, because that isn't what the word means.

He just used a different definition, so it does exist. It's a different semantic perimeter than yours, but it's a word with meaning nonetheless.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

so how do u get entertainment without things to entertain? I dont understand this logic :/

Does a chimp need any material things to entertain itself? No, it plays with other chimps.

[Gay Ork Wang]

Originally Posted by Brent

Does a chimp need any material things to entertain itself? No, it plays with other chimps.

okay. but if he uses a stick to entertain himself, why isnt that necessary if his intention was entertainment? just because 4+4 = 8 doesnt mean 3+5 doenst equal 8 as well

[Mr. Hero]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

so how do u get entertainment without things to entertain? I dont understand this logic :/. But thats exactly what i said though, if u say needs meaning things u need to survive, obviously everything else is not necessary. but that would make anyone greedy for doing anything. why would anyone do anything besides eating and sleeping? because he is greedy? You are greedy because u use a car?

you need technology to make stuff. you need it. you need most of the stuff to keep u mentally sane. you need to be sane to survive.

Everyone is greedy for doing practically anything, that was a large part of my whole greed isn't bad spiel.

Originally Posted by The Unseen

Really? Because I don't see that at all. The only lessening of power that I could imagine is the US having less of a world influence, but in the overall scheme of things, that's a drop in the bucket compared to a shift towards anarcho-capitalism. Like it or not, any sort of dissolution of the major world powers would take alot of deaths. Not necessarily war - perhaps other types of calamities. But a whole lotta deaths.

So from what I have read, someone447, you say that violence and war is in human nature. I don't know if I can disagree with that position. But should we act differently from our nature? Because I don't really give a **** if we're all programmed to be bloodthirsty animals looking for war - I don't like war or violence. I'm against it. Atleast almost always, as there are sticky exceptions and areas that I'm undecided on. If my ethics system conflicts my evolutionary nature, I don't care. I can make my own judgments.

I don't think it'll happen soon, I think we're moving in the other direction and will continue doing so, after the collapse of the dollar and ensuing re-structuring of the world order however I think there will be a populace backlash to the increasing statism that's creeped into most major popular political factions. Now will this happen in the next five years? I doubt it, the next ten? Maybe but I feel like within the next 20-25 years we'll see the world shift and start moving away in a different direction. I certainly won't deny that there will be numerous deaths, but I feel that there will be far more death and general devastation if we continue moving the same direction we've been going for the past 20-40 years.

I'll agree with you on the topic of war and violence, but there are some aspects of our nature that shape the way we make judgements, such as greed, and I feel that type of human nature simply can't be overcome, it's weaker in some people than others but it has always existed in men and will always remain in men.

[Mr. Hero]

Originally Posted by *** Ork Wang

okay. but if he uses a stick to entertain himself, why isnt that necessary if his intention was entertainment? just because 4+4 = 8 doesnt mean 3+5 doenst equal 8 as well

The stick isn't necessary because there are alternatives, the absolute that is needed isn't the stick, but the entertainment. What matters isn't that 4+4=8 or that 3+5=8, what matters is getting to 8, so 8 is the need, other numbers are just a means towards filling that need. Thus it is with the stick, it's just a means to the end, the end is what is needed, not the means.